B VELAYUDHAN Vs. G SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Complainant approached the Opposite Party who in an Architect working as the Chief Architect of the establishment know as 'habitat Technology Group', for the service by way of designing and constructing a building having a total plinth area of 179.39 m2. The Opposite Party has undertaken the construction work of the building for a total estimate of Rs.2,05,000/-. Subsequently on the basis of the guarantee given by the respondent regarding the stability of the low-cost construction of bellow type with clay Mortar, the Complainant agreed for the said low-cost type construction with 20% to 30% less than the given estimate. The foundation and basement (item Nos.1 and 11 in the estimate) were constructed by the Complainant at his own cost, before the Opposite Party started construction. The cost of construction upto the structure stage excluding the cost of wood was Rs.89,452/ for ordinary type. The Opposite Party started the construction work through his employee on 7.11.89 and the Complainant again took over construction on 16.2.90. The Opposite Party had recieved a total sum of Rs.1,33,270/-. It was alleged by the Complainant that though the Opposite Party had received more amounts than the estimate given by him, the construction upto the structure stage was not even completed and that the retaining wall constructed by the Opposite Party for an estimate of Rs.10,500/- had been collapsed on account of insufficient basement and improper supervision on the part of the Opposite Party which caused heavy loss. The Complainant's case is that considering the actual expenditure required for the construction till 1.2.90, the Opposite Party had received an excess amount of Rs.87,033/- deducting an amount of Rs.46,237/- which is the actual cost of construction executed by the Opposite Party even the estimate rate. Another allegation was that on account of fault, imperfection and lack of proper care and supervision on the part of the Opposite Party the Complainant had sustained a loss of Rs.14,402/- towards the additional cost incurred for the reconstruction of the retaining wall. Due to the improper service rendered by the Opposite Party, the Complainant was constrained to purchase 1 percent of property on the North Eastern side and thereby incurred a loss of Rs.1000/-. It was also stated that soon after the completion of the 1st floor of the building a crack developed on the wall just below the roof concrete of the 1st floor which allowed considerable leakage of water during rainy season.

(2.) According the Complainant the said defects occurred due to the improper supervision and service rendered by the Opposite Party. Hence this complaint is filed by him claiming a sum of Rs.1,22,435.80/- towards the loss and damages sustained by him and interest thereon from the date of complaint.

(3.) The Opposite Party filed a detailed version disputing the allegations contained in the complaint. It was contended by the Opposite Party that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act as it is neither a case of sale of goods nor a case of hiring of service for consideration, that there is no specific allegation against the Opposite Party, that Opposite Party had not received any consideration from the Complainant, that there is no agreement or contract or lawful relationship subsisting between the Complainant and the Opposite Party that the Opposite Party is not involved in any manner whatsoever in the actual execution of the construction work or in the disbursement of wages to the workers or in the purchase of building material and that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious. It was contended by the Opposite Party that from the Complainant's letter dated 7.12.90 it is clear that his intention is to demolish the public asset of confidence in the venture of the Opposite Party to propagate and promote cost effective housing in far developing country.